We would like to include a base-pkg list in the snippets directory for the Appliance operating system definition or spin.
One of the main pourposes of the AOS is to define a minimal package set that others can build on. The hope is that this package set will evolve overtime.

On a lark, I decided to use pungi against fedora-livecd-desktop.ks in
order to produce smaller Rawhide install media. After a few false starts
I managed to get working media, and I installed to an external USB HD.
The install booted, but firstboot soiled itself due to a missing
libdb-4.5.so. I booted the rescue media in order to install it, but I
discovered that it wasn't even on the media. Long story short, the
following packages were not included on the media or even in the package
download cache:
compat-db45
hunspell
hunspell-en
I'm sure that pungi is inevitably to blame, but I'm wondering if we
shouldn't add those packages to fedora-livecd-desktop.ks and/or
fedora-live-base.ks in the meantime.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Regrettably, we have to drop the Games spin for a release with F10 GA.
There has been problems composing this spin for F10-Preview, and there's
problems popping up real close to release (which is right now). It's
actually caused by a missing package (simple fix) but the real problem
is whether the maintainer(s) fix(es) the problem and actually test(s)
the spin.
This seems to have not been the case for the Games spin over the course
of the last few weeks, and once we hand over a couple of kickstarts for
Release Engineering to compose, we need to be sure they do not run into
problems for they lack the ability to take over the maintainers work and
fix the kickstart -a workflow related thing.
We (as the Spin SIG) could step in and nurture the kickstart, but not
this close to final GA, and not if it causes Rel. Eng. to need to
through compose/fail/feedback/re-compose loops for every fix that should
have been committed by the maintainer already.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkklUigACgkQKN6f2pNCvwj9zACg1JECHQE/cYEQ1WpDLBYjG2CZ
qV4AmgKoMr9o2MibR3JA4oeS8MW/Kl/X
=ysjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:11:39PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>
>>> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally
>>> require a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this
>>> is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process.
>>>
>>
>> I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused.
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins
>>
>> links to
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal
>>
>> which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer
>> perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I
>> think:
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess
>>
>> is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to
>> find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the
>> ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and
>> distributed as an official fedora spin.
>>
>> That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't
>> really talk about timelines nor expectations.
>>
>> -Mike
>
> I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a
> month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was
> discussed or still needs to be figured out.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html
This is really something that, at this point, should be well
documented in the wiki and hooked from the main Spins SIG page.
Having processes rely on knowledgeable individuals is not scalable, as
we've found to our (unsurprised) dismay in Documentation.
Having the technical guidelines documented is a great step but there's
more to do to prevent spin owner frustration. Bryan Kearney went a
good ways toward a more detailed document at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkearney/ProposedSpinProcess
Are we waiting for the Spins SIG to find the next actions, and drive
this to completion? Or is this hanging elsewhere?
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug